Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
JANUARY 2021
PREPARED FOR City of Santa Clarita Planning Division
PREPARED BY SWCA Environmental Consultants
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE GOLDEN TRIANGLE PROJECT, SANTA CLARITA, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for City of Santa Clarita Planning Division 23920 Valencia Boulevard, Suite 302 Santa Clarita, California 91355 Attn: Erika Iverson
Prepared by Chris Millington, M.A., RPA, and Trevor Gittelhough, M.A., RPA
Principal Investigator Chris Millington, M.A., RPA
SWCA Environmental Consultants 51 West Dayton Street Pasadena, California 91105 (626) 540-0587 www.swca.com
SWCA Project No. 63682
SWCA Cultural Resources Report No. 20-763
January 2021
Keywords: California Environmental Quality Act; Santa Clarita Valley, Los Angeles County; Santa Clarita Planning Division; project area, 10.28 acres; pedestrian survey, 19.08 acres; reconnaissance survey, 1.30 acres; parcel area, 20.38 acres; negative survey; negative Sacred Lands File search; negative CHRIS records search; Township 4 North, Range 15 West, Section 19, San Bernardino Base Meridian; U.S. Geologic Survey, Mint Canyon, California 7.5-minute quadrangle
Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Purpose and Scope: The City of Santa Clarita (City) retained SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) to conduct an archaeological resources study in support of the proposed Golden Triangle Project (project) in Santa Clarita, California. Intertex Property Advisors, Inc. (project applicant), proposes to construct multifamily condominium buildings on a 20.38-acre parcel. The parcel comprises four lots, and the proposed construction includes ground-disturbing activities within two of the lots (project area) that collectively measure 10.28 acres. The following study was conducted to analyze the potential impacts this project may have on cultural resources located in the project area pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), including relevant portions of Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1, 14 California Code of Regulations 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, and PRC Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1. The following report documents the methods and results of a confidential records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), a Sacred Lands Files (SLF) search, archival research, and pedestrian survey used to assess the potential for impacts to archaeological resources.
Dates of Investigation: A CHRIS records search for the project area plus a 1.6-kilometer (1-mile) radius on December 9, 2020, by staff at the South Central Coastal Information System (SCCIC), located at California State University, Fullerton. SWCA received the results of a Sacred Lands File search from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on December 15, 2020. An archaeological survey was conducted by SWCA on December 15, 2020, and included a total of 20.38 acres, comprising the entire project parcel, including the 10.2-acre project area.
Results: The CHRIS records search indicated that several cultural resources studies have been done near the project, one of which was conducted in 1981 within the project area. The CHRIS search identified seven cultural resources, three with archaeological components, none of which are located within the project area. The NAHC’s SLF search was negative. Archaeological survey included 19.08 acres of pedestrian survey and 1.30 acres of reconnaissance-level survey within the steep terrain. No archaeological resources were identified during the survey.
Supplementary archival research indicates that the project area was subject to plow agriculture during the early to mid-twentieth century, which would have disturbed, displaced, or otherwise destroyed any archaeological components that may have once existed on the surface. The lack of historic-period archaeological resources identified during the pedestrian survey suggests that as-yet unidentified resources from this time period are unlikely to be buried and preserved within the project area. A review of ethnographic literature confirmed that the project area is within the ancestral territory of the Tataviam and that significant villages once existed in the region. Natural resources that were important to Native Americans, particularly the Santa Clara River, are within reasonable proximity to the project area. However, no evidence was identified to suggest that within the project area there is an increased likelihood of buried archaeological resources associated with Native Americans. Therefore, SWCA considers the likelihood of buried archaeological resources within the project area to be low. Conclusion: The project requires excavation and removal of the underlying alluvial sediments to depths ranging between 0.3 and 5 m (1 and 5 feet) below the current grade. While the likelihood of buried archaeological resources within the project area is considered low, if present, such resources have the potential to be significant under CEQA. The proposed project would adhere to applicable regulatory compliance measures intended to reduce and avoid creating significant impacts to archaeological resources in the event of a discovery during grading, excavation, or other ground-disturbing activities. With implementation of conditions to comply with regulatory compliance measures related to the inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources and human remains, SWCA finds that the proposed project will have less-than-significant impact to archaeological resources.
Disposition of Data: This report will be on file with the project applicant, City of Santa Clarita Planning Division, SCCIC, and SWCA’s Pasadena Office.
i Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
CONTENTS
Introduction ...... 1 Project Description ...... 1 Area of Potential Impact ...... 5 Regulatory Setting ...... 5 State Regulations ...... 5 California Environmental Quality Act ...... 5 Treatment of Human Remains...... 8 Environmental Setting ...... 8 Cultural Setting ...... 9 Prehistory...... 9 Ethnographic Overview ...... 10 Tataviam ...... 10 Historical Overview ...... 12 Spanish Period (1769–1822) ...... 12 Mexican Period (1822–1848) ...... 13 American Period (1848–present) ...... 14 History of the Project Area ...... 15 Methods ...... 17 CHRIS Records Search ...... 17 Archival Research ...... 17 Archaeological Survey ...... 17 Results ...... 18 CHRIS Records Search ...... 18 Previously Conducted Cultural Resources Studies ...... 18 Previously Recorded Cultural Resources ...... 21 Sacred Lands File Search and Native American Consultation ...... 21 Archaeological Survey ...... 22 Conclusion and Recommendations...... 25 References Cited ...... 26
Appendices
Appendix A. Sacred Lands File Search Results
ii Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity map...... 2 Figure 2. Project area and the proposed lots plotted on an aerial photograph...... 3 Figure 3. Project area plotted on a U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute quadrangle...... 4 Figure 4. Native American communities within ancestral territories referenced in ethnographic sources...... 11 Figure 5. Historic aerial photographs of the project area in 1930 (top) and 1963 (bottom) (sources: Fairchild Aerial Surveys, Flight C-1001a, Frame 286; Mark Hurd Aerial Surveys, Flight HA-UW, Frame 14)...... 16 Figure 6. Archaeological resources survey results map...... 23 Figure 7. Overview of the project area (Lots 1 and 3) and Lot 2 (commercial property and parking lot), facing northwest...... 24 Figure 8. Overview of Lot 4 and reconnaissance survey areas within steep terrain, facing north...... 24
Tables
Table 1. Prehistoric Cultural Chronology ...... 9 Table 2. Previous Cultural Resources Studies within 1 Mile of the Project Area ...... 18 Table 3. Previously Recorded Resources within 1 Mile of the Project Area ...... 21
iii Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
INTRODUCTION The City of Santa Clarita (City) retained SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) to conduct an archaeological resources study in support of the proposed Golden Triangle Project (project) in Santa Clarita, California. Intertex Property Advisors, Inc. (project applicant), proposes to construct multifamily condominium buildings on a 20.38-acre parcel. The parcel comprises four lots, and the proposed construction includes ground-disturbing activities within two of the lots (project area) that collectively measure 10.28 acres. The following study was conducted to analyze any potential impacts this project may have on cultural resources located in the project area, for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City Planning Division is the CEQA lead agency for the project. This report documents the methods and results of a confidential records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), a Sacred Lands Files (SLF) search, archival research, and pedestrian survey used to assess the potential for impacts to archaeological resources.
SWCA senior archaeologist Chris Millington, M.A., Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA), was the principal investigator and coauthored this report. SWCA archaeologist Trevor Gittelhough, M.A., RPA, conducted the pedestrian survey and coauthored the report. Millington and Gittelhough meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in archaeology. Copies of the report will be on file with the project applicant, City Planning Division, South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC), and SWCA’s Pasadena Office.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project applicant proposes to construct multifamily residential condominium buildings and associated infrastructure at 20600 Golden Triangle Road in Santa Clarita, California (Figure 1). The 10.28-acre project area is part of a larger 20.38-acre parcel (Assessor’s Parcel No. 2836-017-054), listed as 20600 Golden Triangle Road. The surrounding area is urbanized and is defined by commercial buildings to the west; Golden Triangle Road to the north; Isabella Parkway on the east, beyond which is a residential neighborhood; and undeveloped open space to the south (Figure 2). This location is plotted in Section 19, Township 4 North, Range 15 West, as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Mint Canyon, California, 7.5-minute quadrangle (Figure 3).
The project would subdivide the current 20.38-acre parcel into four lots (see Figure 2): a 9.91-acre lot for 164 residential units (Lot 1); a 3.05-acre commercial lot for the existing Pep Boys automotive store that will remain in place (Lot 2); a 0.37-acre lot to be used for a privately maintained water retention basin (Lot 3); and a 7.05-acre lot that is to be maintained as a private open space (Lot 4). The project applicant proposes to construct nine buildings within Lot 1 that would vary in size and composition but would be no more than three stories tall, with a maximum height of 12.2 meters (m) (40 feet). The residential buildings would encircle two appurtenant structures—a clubhouse and cabana—as well as various community amenities, such as a pool and spa.
Additional development activities include the renovation of a portion of an existing parking area associated with the commercial tenant (Pep Boys) located on proposed Lot 2. This lot would continue to house the existing commercial building and remaining associated parking. The project would include a combination of garages, carports, and at-grade parking. A total of 412 parking stalls would be provided as part of the project. Vehicular access to the project area would be provided via private roadways that connect to Isabella Parkway and Golden Triangle Road. A network of private roadways that traverse the project area would provide access to the residential buildings and parking areas. The private roadways are designed to facilitate access by the fire department and other emergency personnel.
1 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
Figure 1. Vicinity map.
2 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
Figure 2. Project area and the proposed lots plotted on an aerial photograph.
3 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
Figure 3. Project area plotted on a U.S. Geological Survey 7.5-minute quadrangle.
4 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
The project would include the installation of new sewer and water lines. The proposed 8-inch sewer lines would connect to an existing 8-inch sewer line along Golden Triangle Road. The proposed 8-inch water lines would connect to an existing 14-inch water line along Golden Triangle Road and an existing 10-inch water line along Isabella Parkway. The project would construct a network of storm drain facilities. For high flows, the stormwater facilities would connect to stormwater manufactured treatment devices, which are designed to remove pollutants from stormwater before runoff is discharged off-site into existing drainage facilities. For low flows, the stormwater facilities would connect to the water quality detention basin established within proposed Lot 3.
Area of Potential Impact
All proposed ground-disturbing activities would be confined to Lots 1 and 3. For the purposes of this study, Lots 1 and 3 have been designated as the project area, which defines the geographical limits of the area in which potential impacts to archaeological resources could occur. To facilitate future planning efforts, the archaeological survey also included Lot 4, which extends approximately 314 m (1,030 feet) south and 157 m (515 feet) west from the project area. The horizontal dimensions of the 10.28-acre project area measure approximately 336 × 209 m (1,103 × 687 feet) on a north-northwest axis. Excavation within the project area is expected to be at least 0.3 m (1 foot) below grade across the entire project area and at least 1.5 m (5 feet) in the proposed building footprint area. Excavation estimates are based on the recommendations in the geotechnical analysis conducted by Krazan & Associates, Inc. (Kellogg and Pelayo 2020).
The major ground-disturbing activities would occur during the grading phase of work and would include excavation and scraping using a grader, excavators, dozers, scrapers, and tractor/loader/backhoes. Site clearing would be required to remove vegetation and is expected to result in ground disturbances of at least 0.3 m (1 foot) below the current grade across the entire project area. Within the proposed building footprint area, over-excavation is recommended to a minimum depth of 1.5 m (5 feet) below existing grades, or 0.9 m (3 feet) below the bottom of the proposed footings, whichever is deeper; the excavation is recommended to extend laterally a minimum of 1.5 m (5 feet) beyond the edges of the proposed footings and building appurtenances. Within the proposed exterior flatwork and pavement areas, over- excavation is recommended to extend at least 0.3 m (1 foot) below existing grade, or 0.3 m (1 foot) below finished subgrade, whichever is deeper. The actual depth of the over-excavation would be determined by the geotechnical field representative during construction.
REGULATORY SETTING
State Regulations
The California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), a division of the California Department of Parks and Recreation, is responsible for carrying out the duties described in the California Public Resources Code (PRC) and maintaining the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The state-level regulatory framework also includes CEQA, which requires the identification and mitigation of substantial adverse impacts that may affect the significance of eligible historical and archaeological resources.
California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA requires a lead agency to analyze whether historical and/or archaeological resources may be adversely affected by a proposed project. Under CEQA, a “project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the
5 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
environment” (PRC Section 21084.1). Answering this question is a two-part process: first, the determination must be made as to whether the proposed project involves cultural resources. Second, if cultural resources are present, the proposed project must be analyzed for a potential “substantial adverse change in the significance” of the resource.
HISTORICAL RESOURCES
According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, for the purposes of CEQA, historical resources are as follows: . A resource listed in, or formally determined eligible…for listing in the CRHR (PRC 5024.1, Title 14 California Code of Regulations [CCR], Section 4850 et seq.). . A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Section PRC 5020.1(k), of the Public Resources Code or identified as significant in a historic resources survey meeting the requirements of Section PRC 5024.1(g). . Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that the lead agency determines to be eligible for national, state, or local landmark listing; generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be historically significant (and therefore a historic resource under CEQA) if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR (as defined in PRC Section 5024.1, Title 14 CCR Section 4852).
Resources nominated to the CRHR must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to convey the reasons for their significance. Resources whose historic integrity (as defined above) does not meet the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR.
According to CEQA, the fact that a resource is not listed in or determined eligible for listing in the CRHR or is not included in a local register or survey shall not preclude the lead agency from determining that the resource may be a historical resource (PRC Section 5024.1). Pursuant to CEQA, a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource may have a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b]).
Substantial Adverse Change and Indirect Impacts to Historical Resources
CEQA Guidelines specify that a “substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired” (Section 15064.5). Material impairment occurs when a project alters in an adverse manner or demolishes “those physical characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion” or eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP, CRHR, or local register. In addition, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2, the “direct and indirect significant effects of the project on the environment shall be clearly identified and described, giving due consideration to both the short-term and long-term effects.”
The following guides and requirements are of particular relevance to this study’s analysis of indirect impacts to historical resources. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines (Section 15378), study of a project under CEQA requires consideration of “the whole of an action, which has the potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.” CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064[d]) further define direct and indirect impacts as follows: (1) A direct physical change in the environment is a physical change in the environment which is caused by and immediately related to the project.
6 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
(2) An indirect physical change in the environment is a physical change in the environment, which is not immediately related to the project, but which is caused indirectly by the project. If a direct physical change in the environment in turn causes another change in the environment, then the other change is an indirect physical change in the environment. (3) An indirect physical change is to be considered only if that change is a reasonably foreseeable impact which may be caused by the project.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
In terms of archaeological resources, PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a “unique archaeological resource” as an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria: (1) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. (2) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type. (3) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
If it can be demonstrated that a proposed project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require that reasonable efforts be made to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state. To the extent that they cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC Sections 21083.2[a]–[c]). CEQA notes that, if an archaeological resource is neither a unique archaeological resource nor a historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources shall not be considered to be a significant effect on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[c][4]).
CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
Created in 1992 and implemented in 1998, the CRHR is “an authoritative guide in California to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the state’s historical resources and to indicate what properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (PRC Sections 21083.2 and 21084.1). Certain properties, including those listed in or formally determined eligible for listing in the NRHP, and California Historical Landmarks numbered 770 and higher are automatically listed in the CRHR. Other properties recognized under the California Points of Historical Interest program, identified as significant in historical resources surveys, or designated by local landmarks programs may be nominated for listing in the CRHR. According to PRC Section 5024.1(c), a resource, either an individual property or a contributor to a historic district, may be listed in the CRHR if the State Historical Resources Commission determines that it meets one or more of the following criteria, which are modeled on NRHP criteria: . Criterion 1: It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. . Criterion 2: It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. . Criterion 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
7 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
. Criterion 4: It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in history or prehistory.
Resources nominated to the CRHR must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to convey the reasons for their significance. Resources whose historic integrity does not meet NRHP criteria may still be eligible for listing in the CRHR.
Treatment of Human Remains The disposition of burials falls first under the general prohibition on disturbing or removing human remains under California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. More specifically, remains suspected to be Native American are treated under CEQA at CCR Section 15064.5; PRC Section 5097.98 illustrates the process to be followed if remains are discovered. If human remains are discovered during construction, the following procedure shall be observed:
. Stop immediately and contact the county coroner:
1104 N. Mission Road Los Angeles, California 90033 323-343-0512 (8 am to 5 pm Monday through Friday) or 323-343-0714 (after hours, Saturday, Sunday, and holidays) . If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). . The NAHC will immediately notify the person it believes to be the most likely descendant (MLD) of the deceased Native American. . The MLD has 48 hours to make recommendations to the owner, or representative, for the treatment or disposition, with proper dignity, of the human remains and grave goods. . If the owner does not accept the MLD’s recommendations, the owner or the MLD may request mediation by the NAHC. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project area is in the foothills at the western edge of the San Gabriel Mountains, along Soledad Canyon. The San Gabriel Mountains are on a thin slice of crust bounded by the San Andreas and San Gabriel fault zones that includes Proterozoic and Mesozoic bedrock (Barth 1990). Following the emplacement of the bedrock, movement along the major bounding faults from the Late Cretaceous to the Paleocene resulted in the initiation of uplift of the mountains (Barth 1990). Ongoing tectonic activity in the form of compressional deformation from the large restraining bend in the Sand Andreas fault zone results in the steep terrane and high erosional rates characteristic of the mountains today (Dixon et al. 2012). Geologic mapping indicates that the project area is made up of Quaternary colluvial sediments— silt, sand, and gravel deposited through gravity flows from the base of the steep hillsides (south of the project area). These relatively young sediment deposits date from recent times to the late Holocene (Yerkes 1996); the Holocene Epoch began approximately 12,000 years ago.
The project area is set within an alluvial fan formed at the base of dissected hills to the south and above the Santa Clarita River floodplain. The west-flowing Santa Clara River is located approximately 0.5 mile north. The project area is currently a vacant lot that has been subject to surface disturbances at least over the last 100 years, initially through agricultural development (see History of the Project Area section below). The project area is relatively flat and has little topographic relief, whereas the area to the south includes undeveloped and vegetated hillsides. The proposed lot divisions that define the southern
8 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
boundary of the project area essentially follow the elevation contour near the crest of the ridge, beyond which are relatively steep slopes. There is an access road maintained by the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power off Isabella Parkway that ascends the hillside toward the south.
Soil conditions in the project area are described in the project’s geotechnical report (Kellogg and Pelayo 2020). The geotechnical investigation included excavation of 14 bores sampled across the project area. Soil profiles were recorded for each of the bores. The subsurface soils are described as “interbeded layers of stiff to hard sandy silt and sandy clay and medium dense to very dense silty sand up to the maximum depth explored, 50 feet below site grades” (Kellogg and Pelayo 2020:4). These sediments are designated by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as part of the Hanford sandy loam series, which consists of very deep, well-drained soils formed in moderately coarse textured alluvium, derived primarily from granite (NRCS 1999). Hanford soils are found on stream bottoms, floodplains, and alluvial fans and are restricted to slopes between 0 and 15 percent.
CULTURAL SETTING
Prehistory Numerous chronological sequences have been devised to aid in understanding cultural changes within southern California. Building on early studies and focusing on data synthesis, Wallace (1955, 1978) developed a prehistoric chronology for the southern California coastal region that is still widely used today and is applicable to near-coastal and many inland areas. Four periods are presented in Wallace’s prehistoric sequence: Early Man, Milling Stone, Intermediate, and Late Prehistoric. Although Wallace’s (1955) synthesis initially lacked chronological precision due to a paucity of absolute dates (Moratto 1984:159), this situation has been alleviated by the availability of thousands of radiocarbon dates that have been obtained by southern California researchers in the past three decades (Byrd and Raab 2007:217). Several revisions have been made to Wallace’s (1955) synthesis using radiocarbon dates and projectile point assemblages (e.g., Koerper and Drover 1983; Koerper et al. 2002; Mason and Peterson 1994). The regional prehistoric cultural chronology is summarized in Table 1 (adapted from Wallace 1955, 1978).
Table 1. Prehistoric Cultural Chronology
Period Key Characteristics Date Range Early Man • Diverse mixture of hunting and gathering ca. 10,000–6000 BC • Greater emphasis on hunting Milling Stone • Subsistence strategies centered on collecting plant foods and small animals 6000–3000 BC • Extended and loosely flexed burials Intermediate • Shift toward a hunting and maritime subsistence strategy, along with a wider use 3000 BC–AD 500 of plant foods • Trend toward greater adaptation to regional or local resources • Fully flexed burials, placed facedown or faceup, and oriented toward the north or west Late Prehistoric • Increase in the use of plant food resources, as well as an increase in land and AD 500–Historic Contact sea mammal hunting • Increase in the diversity and complexity of material culture • Increased usage of the bow and arrow • Increase in population size, accompanied by the advent of larger, more permanent villages
9 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
Ethnographic Overview Tataviam
The project area is located within the traditional territory of the Tataviam (Figure 4) (Kroeber 1925:613- 614; King and Blackburn 1978). Their territory was located primarily in the upper drainage of the Santa Clara River between the San Fernando Valley to the south and the top of Pastoria Creek in the Tehachapi Mountains to the north. To the east, their lands extended to part of the southern fringe of Antelope Valley. The core Tataviam population centered on the south sides of the Liebre, Sawmill, and Sierra Pelona Mountains. Neighboring groups include the Ventureño Chumash to the west, Emigdiano Chumash to the north, Kitanemuk to the northeast, Vanyume Serrano to the east, and Western Gabrielino to the south in the San Fernando Valley (King and Blackburn 1978:535; Grant 1978; Johnson and Earle 1990:193).
The Tataviam language is a part of the Takic branch of the Uto-Aztecan language family, also spoken by the Western Gabrielino and Kitanemuk (Mithun 2001:540). This language family can be traced to the Great Basin area, which represents an origin different from the Chumash. According to Bright (1975), the Tataviam language may be “the remnant, influenced by Takic, of a language family otherwise unknown in southern California” or the language was probably Takic but not from the Serran or Cupan branches like Kitanemuk and Vanyume, respectively. The Tataviam language probably began to differentiate itself from the others around 1000 B.C. (King and Blackburn 1978:535). The name “Tataviam” itself is derived from the Kitanemuk’s designation for this group (King and Blackburn 1978:535). Kroeber (1925:614) referred to them as the “Alliklik,” named by the Ventureño Chumash to separate them from the Beñeme Serrano in the western Mojave Desert and Antelope Valley.
Information about Tataviam social organization and political structure is relatively limited, but there is no evidence that would substantially differentiate them from the Kitanemuk and Western Gabrielino. Tataviam villages ranged from large centers of around 200 individuals to small settlements of 10 to 15 people (King and Blackburn 1978:536). Intermediate-sized villages were dispersed between the larger centers, with smaller villages spaced around the larger villages. Tataviam villages and placenames closest to the project area are Chaguayanga, Tobimobit, and Tochonanga (King and Blackburn 1978:535; Hackel et al. 2015; King 2004:116–121). Figure 4 shows the estimated locations of each former community, which range from 4.3 to 4.5 kilometers (km) (2.7 to 2.8 miles) from the project area.
10 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
Figure 4. Native American communities within ancestral territories referenced in ethnographic sources.
11 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
King and Blackburn (1978:534) estimate the total Tataviam population at the time of historic contact at no more than 1,000 people, with the widest possible territorial extent considered. Mortuary practices probably included cremation, as well as a mourning ceremony practiced in late summer or early fall (King and Blackburn 1978:535).
Archaeological data, the primary source of information available, indicate broad similarities among the Tataviam, Chumash, and Gabrielino (King and Blackburn 1978:536). Considering their environment and available data, it is probable that Tataviam relied more heavily on yucca as a staple than neighboring groups. Additional plant foods most likely included acorns, sage seeds, juniper seeds, and islay berries. Animal resources included small mammals such as rabbits and rodents, as well as deer and possibly antelope. Extensive trade networks developed between inland groups of the desert regions. They traded lithic material and large game animals with coastal groups for marine resources, shell, asphaltum, and steatite.
The first European visit to the general Tataviam area occurred in A.D. 1769 when Lieutenant Colonel Gaspar de Portolá led an overland expedition from the newly established settlement at San Diego in an attempt to find Monterey Bay. They traversed the San Fernando Valley in August 1769, passing to the north of where Mission San Fernando would be founded 28 years later. From there, they entered Tataviam territory in the Newhall-Saugus area through the Freemont Pass (Portolá 1909). The general vicinity was probably crossed again during the second Portolá expedition in 1770 and by the Friar Francisco Garces expedition in 1776 (Beck and Haase 1974:15). The Mission of San Fernando was founded in 1798 on the southern fringe of Tataviam lands, and by 1820, most of the population had been baptized at the mission. During this time, Tataviam often intermarried with surrounding Native American groups, most notably the Kitanemuk, and often attended and participated in Chumash ceremonies.
Following the Spanish period, interest in the Santa Clara Valley grew as fur trappers in the early 1800s, the discovery of gold in Placerita Canyon in 1842, and provisioning of miners heading for the gold strikes in the 1850s led to Euro-American settlement, ranching, and agriculture within the valley. Beef, grain, and other foodstuffs in demand by the miners resulted in an economic windfall for the ranches in the valley. As a consequence, the ranchers expanded their range into Tataviam hunting grounds and harvesting fields. Tataviam families and communities intermarried with and were absorbed into other Native American settlements in southern California during the late nineteenth century (Johnson and Earle 1990:209). Several Tataviam descendant families lasted into the twentieth century, but by 1916, there were no longer any Tataviam speakers (King and Blackburn 1978:536).
Historical Overview The post-Contact history of California is divided into three periods: the Spanish period (1769–1822), the Mexican period (1822–1848), and the American period (1848–present). Each of these periods is briefly described below.
Spanish Period (1769–1822)
The first Europeans to observe what became southern California were members of the 1542 expedition of Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo. Cabrillo and other early explorers sailed along the coast and made limited expeditions into Alta (upper) California between 1529 and 1769. Although Spanish, Russian, and British explorers briefly visited Alta California during this nearly 250-year span, they did not establish permanent settlements (Starr 2007).
Gaspar de Portolá and Franciscan Father Junipero Serra established the first Spanish settlement in Alta California at San Diego in 1769. Mission San Diego de Alcalá was the first of 21 missions built by the
12 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
Spanish between 1769 and 1823. Portolá continued north from the Los Angeles Basin, through the San Fernando Valley and in the vicinity of the project area, before heading west into Ventura County, eventually reaching San Francisco Bay on October 31, 1769. On September 4, 1781, 12 years after Portolá’s initial visit, a dozen families from Sonora, Mexico, founded El Pueblo de la Reina de los Angeles de la Porciúncula (The Los Angeles Queen of the Town of Portiuncula) under the specific directions of Governor Felipe de Neve. The site chosen for the new pueblo was elevated on a broad terrace 0.5 mile west of the river (Gumprecht 2001:42). The Portolá expedition marked the beginning of Spanish military supply trains servicing newly established missions, including Mission San Gabriel de Arcangel (1771), the first permanent European settlement in the area. Later, in 1772, Spanish Commander Pedro Fages found grapes in the mountains north of present-day Gorman and named the area Cañada de Las Uvas, or Grapevine Canyon. A subsequent expedition was made by Friar Francisco Garces in 1776 (Beck and Haase 1974:15). Spanish settlers including Francisco Reyes established ranchos in the San Fernando Valley by the 1790s.
Franciscan padres began the process of converting the local Native Americans to Christianity through baptism and relocating them to mission grounds (Engelhardt 1927a). The San Fernando Mission was founded 26 years later in 1797, its location chosen as a stopping point between the San Gabriel and San Buenaventura missions (Engelhardt 1927b). Most of the Native Americans from the Los Angeles Basin and surrounding foothill and mountain ranges were persuaded or forced to settle near the two missions. These included Tataviam, Chumash, and the Eastern Gabrielino as far south as the Santa Ana River and west to the Los Angeles River. The padres also proselytized the Serrano of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains, as well as the Vanyume Serrano of the Mojave Desert, many of the western Cahuilla in the Coachella and San Jacinto valleys, some Luiseño of the San Jacinto Valley, and Western Gabrielino of the plains west of the Los Angeles River, San Fernando Valley, and the southern Channel Islands.
Mexican Period (1822–1848)
A major emphasis during the Spanish period in California was the construction of missions and associated presidios to integrate the Native American population into Christianity and communal enterprise. Incentives were also provided to bring settlers to pueblos or towns, but just three pueblos were established during the Spanish period, only two of which were successful and remain as California cities (San José and Los Angeles). Several factors kept growth within Alta California to a minimum, including the threat of foreign invasion, political dissatisfaction, and unrest among the indigenous population. After more than a decade of intermittent rebellion and warfare, New Spain (Mexico and the California territory) won independence from Spain in 1821. In 1822, the Mexican legislative body in California ended isolationist policies designed to protect the Spanish monopoly on trade, and decreed California ports open to foreign merchants.
Extensive land grants were established in the interior during the Mexican period, in part to increase the population inland from the more settled coastal areas where the Spanish had first concentrated their colonization efforts. The secularization of the missions following Mexico’s independence from Spain resulted in the subdivision of former mission lands and establishment of many additional ranchos. During the supremacy of the ranchos (1834–1848), landowners largely focused on the cattle industry and devoted large tracts to grazing. Cattle hides became a primary southern California export, providing a commodity to trade for goods from the east and other areas in the United States and Mexico. The number of non-Native inhabitants increased during this period because of the influx of explorers, trappers, and ranchers associated with the land grants. The rising California population contributed to the introduction and rise of diseases foreign to the Native American population, who had no associated immunities.
13 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
American Period (1848–present)
The United States took control of California in 1846, seizing Monterey, San Francisco, San Diego, and Los Angeles with little resistance. Los Angeles soon slipped from American control, however, and needed to be retaken in 1847. Approximately 600 U.S. sailors, marines, Army dragoons, and mountain men converged under the leadership of Colonel Stephen W. Kearney and Commodore Robert F. Stockton in early January of that year to challenge the California resistance, which was led by General Jose Maria Flores. The American party scored a decisive victory over the Californios in the Battle of the Rio San Gabriel and at the Battle of La Mesa the following day, effectively ending the war and opening the door for increased American immigration (Harlow 1992:193–218). Hostilities officially ended with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, in which the United States agreed to pay Mexico $15 million for the conquered territory, including California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming, representing nearly half of Mexico’s pre-1846 holdings. California joined the Union in 1850 as the 31st state (Wilkman and Wilkman 2006:15). Though the discovery of gold in northern California in 1848 gave rise to the California Gold Rush, the first California gold was found in Los Angeles County in 1842. The large strike at Sutter’s Creek 7 years later led to an enormous influx of American citizens in the 1850s and 1860s, and these “forty-niners” rapidly displaced the old rancho families. One year after discovering gold, nearly 90,000 people journeyed to the California gold fields. With most miners drawn to central California by its well-known strikes, Los Angeles attracted people who were largely peripheral to the Gold Rush.
SANTA CLARITA VALLEY
During the initial Portolá expedition in 1769, the party encountered a stream after departing the Santa Fernando Valley, which they named Santa Clara after Saint Clare. In 1777, the Mission Santa Clara de Asís was founded south of San Francisco, and many of the surrounding jurisdictions, landforms, and streams took the name Santa Clara, so that there were two Santa Clara Rivers. To differentiate the two, the southern of the two streams came to be known as the “little Santa Clara River,” or Santa Clarita, in what was then known as the Newhall-Saugus area (Newhall 1997). After the establishment of Mission San Fernando Rey de Espana, the priests expanded their reach into the Santa Clarita Valley for their estancia. This led to the displacement of the Tataviam in the region, many of them relocated to mission, and the construction of the Estancia de San Francisco Xavier at the confluence of Castaic Creek and the Santa Clara River in 1804 (Worden 1996). With the secularization of the missions during the Mexican period (1822–1848), the estancia was deeded to Lieutenant Antonio del Valle in 1839 as the Rancho San Francisco. Upon his death in 1841, the Rancho was split between his Ygnacio and his second wife Jacoba Feliz, with Ygnacio receiving the western portion and Jacoba and her six children receiving the rest.
The Santa Clarita Valley region experienced population growth in mid-1800s spurred primarily by two events: the 1842 discovery of gold in Placerita Canyon, the first documented discovery in California (Worden 1996); and the 1859 discovery of oil in Pico Canyon, which resulted in the 1879 construction of California’s first oil pipeline (Franks and Lambert 1985). Placerita Canyon is the location of the first discovery of gold in the state. The find was discovered in 1842 by the uncle of Jacoba Feliz, Francisco Lopez (Bowman 1949). His discovery sparked the first gold rush into the state, primarily of Mexican citizens from the state of Sonora. This prompted a boom in the development of mining camps and small settlements throughout the Santa Clarita Valley, which would figure into later mining activities in the region. The location of Lopez’s discovery has been memorialized at a nearby oak tree, known as the “Oak of the Golden Dream,” and was established as California Historical Landmark No. 168 (OHP 2020).
The Santa Clarita Valley was also the first location of oil drilling in Southern California, beginning in 1865 with the discovery of oil seeps in Pico Canyon. Further oil exploration led to the establishment of numerous oil wells throughout the valley and the development of the Newhall Oil Field and Pioneer Oil
14 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
Refinery (the precursor to Chevron Oil) in 1874. In 1876 the Southern Pacific Railroad was extended as far north as Saugus and provided transportation for the Santa Clarita Valley’s agricultural, ranching, and oil products. This transportation route directly led to the development of the town of Newhall—named after Henry M. Newhall who purchased the Rancho San Francisco in 1875. Agriculture, ranching, and oil development remained the primary land uses for the area through the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
Santa Clarita Valley is the site of one of California’s worst disasters, as well as the worst civil engineering disaster in America. The Saint Francis Dam was constructed in 1924 by William Mulholland, the largest he had constructed, to help address Los Angeles’s water supply issues. The dam was constructed in San Francisquito Canyon, north of Newhall. The Saint Francis Dam failed on the night of March 12, 1928, releasing a devastating flood of 12.5 billion gallons of water that rushed down the canyon as a 180- foot-tall wave at a speed of over 70 miles per hour. The water, along with trees, dam fragments, cattle, buildings, and bodies of the disaster’s victims, flowed southwest to the Pacific Ocean at Ventura. At the end of the disaster, at least 450 people had died, though that number may be as high as 1,000, as the exact number of migrant workers and transients in the area at the time of the collapse is unknown. The disaster was memorialized in 1978 as the St. Francis Dam Disaster Site, California Historical Landmark No. 919, with a plaque located on the grounds of the rebuilt San Francisquito Powerhouse No. 2.
The city of Santa Clarita was incorporated in 1987, which included most of the former Rancho San Francisco and the communities of Canyon Country, Newhall, Saugus, and Valencia. Between 1989 and 2016, the City annexed several of the surrounding areas to the north, east, and southeast, so the original area of the city grew from 40 to 66 square miles. The project area is located centrally within the original city boundary.
History of the Project Area
A small community known as Honby had been established to the northwest of the project area and is noted on USGS topographic maps from 1900, which show a few streets extending north of the railroad. The community was later absorbed by Canyon Country, which became the city of Santa Clarita. Like many other communities in Southern California in March 1938, Honby experienced substantial damage from flooding along the Santa Clarita River. Roads, bridges, buildings, and lost vehicles were all reported as having been damaged or destroyed, including many recently constructed out-buildings for the Honby elementary school (Newhall Signal and Saugus Enterprise 1938:5).
Aerial photographs from 1930 and 1963 show the project area being used for agriculture (Figure 5). Plowed fields are visible in most of the relatively flat portions of the alluvial plain in the vicinity. In both of the historical aerial photographs, the field that includes the project area extends to the east and west, bound to the north by the Southern Pacific Railroad and to the south by the footslope of the adjacent hills. Aerial photographs taken between 1947 and 1963 show what appears to be a single-family residence and several outbuildings surrounded by landscaped trees located approximately 305 m (1,000 feet) west of the project area. A graded road heading east from Golden Valley Road passes by the structures and continues through the project area and terminates within agricultural fields to the east; a segment of the road is still present within the project area. It is not clear precisely when the agricultural land uses within the project area ceased, but it does not appear to have continued during the 1970s and 1980s, and during this period the project area appears to have been one part of the larger fallowed field. From the early to mid-1990s, many of the former agricultural fields were subdivided and developed, around which time the steel lattice tower electrical circuit located south of the project area was also built. By 1994, the Home Depot and associated parking were constructed west of the project area, while the project area remained vacant. The commercial building and parking lot within Lot 2 was constructed in the early 2000s.
15 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
Figure 5. Aerial photographs of the project area in 1930 (top) and 1963 (bottom) (sources: Fairchild Aerial Surveys, Flight C-1001a, Frame 286; Mark Hurd Aerial Surveys, Flight HA-UW, Frame 14).
16 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
METHODS
CHRIS Records Search
SWCA requested a confidential search of the CHRIS records at the SCCIC, located on the campus of California State University, Fullerton. The SCCIC maintains records of previously documented cultural resources and technical studies; it also maintains copies of the OHP’s portion of the statewide Historical Resources Inventory. The search included any previously recorded archaeological resources (i.e., excludes historic buildings) within the project area and surrounding 1.6-km (1-mile) area. The purpose of the CHRIS records search is to identify whether any archaeological resources have been documented in the project area and assess the potential for undocumented resources to be present by comparison to adjacent areas.
Archival Research SWCA reviewed property-specific historical information and ethnographic literature to identify relevant background for the project area and its historical inhabitants. Research focused on a variety of primary and secondary materials, including historical maps, aerial and ground photographs, ethnographic reports, and technical reports prepared for the project. Sources consulted include the following: Huntington Library Digital Archives (plats); University of California, Santa Barbara Digital Library (aerial photographs); USGS historical topographic maps; the Santa Clarita Valley Historical Society’s website; and the Newhall Signal and Saugus Enterprise.
Archaeological Survey
On December 15, 2020, SWCA archaeologist Trevor Gittelhough conducted a pedestrian survey of the 10.28-acre project area, plus an additional 10.1 acres that includes the other lots comprising the parcel in which the project area is located. Although any resources located in the additional survey area would not be subject to direct impacts by the proposed project, the additional area was included in the survey in order to identify potential constraints for future planning efforts.
The pedestrian survey consisted of systematic surface inspection of all areas with transects walked at 15- m intervals or less to ensure that any surface-exposed artifacts and sites could be identified. SWCA examined the ground surface for the presence of prehistoric artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, tool- making debris, stone milling tools); historic artifacts (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics); sediment discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden; roads and trails; and depressions and other features that might indicate the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., post holes, foundations).
A reconnaissance-level survey was undertaken on slopes too steep to allow for safe pedestrian survey. In areas that were inaccessible, the reconnaissance survey consisted of inspecting the area from a safe distance, looking for indications that cultural resources were present. The project area was photographed using a digital camera, and property boundaries were identified with a handheld global positioning system (GPS) unit. All field notes, photographs, and records related to the current study are on file at SWCA’s office in Pasadena, California.
17 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
RESULTS
CHRIS Records Search Previously Conducted Cultural Resources Studies
The CHRIS records search identified 39 cultural resources studies conducted within 1.6 km (1 mile) of the project area (Table 2). One of these studies (LA-01032) included a pedestrian survey conducted within a portion of the project area. The study was conducted in 1981 and comprised a 285-acre area proposed for development as an industrial park (Van Horn 1981), which overlapped the southern portion of the current project area and all of Lot 4. No archaeological resources were identified during the surface inventory. Various disturbances and development were noted, including unpaved roads, the transmission circuit, mining developments (concrete basins, pilings, and cables), and firebreaks across the ridges and hillsides. The report did not explicitly assess the potential for buried resources but stated that only material remains from the last 50 years were likely to be present, and concluded that the proposed industrial development would have no impacts to archaeological resources (Van Horn 1981:3–4).
Table 2. Previous Cultural Resources Studies within 1 Mile of the Project Area
Relationship to Report No. Author (Affiliation) Year Study Title Project Area LA-00054 Leonard, Nelson N., III 1974 Archaeological Resources of the Proposed Castaic Outside—within 1 (University of California, Los Conduit System mile Angeles Archaeological Survey) LA-00209 Horne, Wiley 1976 Letter Report of Archaeological Survey for Los Angeles Outside—within 1 County Sanitation Project Engineer Report for Soledad mile Canyon Relief Trunk Sewer Section 4 LA-00571 Davis, Lois, and Bruce Love 1979 An Archaeological Assessment of a Proposed 400 Unit Outside—within 1 (University of California Los Mobile Home Park in Canyon Country, Los Angeles mile Angeles Archaeological County, California Survey) LA-01030 Robinson, R. W. 1981 Cultural Resources Investigation Tentative Tract No. Outside—within 40491 1 mile LA-01032 Van Horn, David M. 1981 Archaeological Survey Report: a 285+ Acre Parcel Within—southern (Archaeological Associates, Located Near Saugus and Newhall in an Unincorporated portion (plus all Ltd.) Portion of Los Angeles County, California of Lot 4) LA-01117 Anonymous (Northridge 1979 Preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Report for Zone Outside—within 1 Archaeological Research Case No 6406, Soledad Canyon Area, California mile Center) LA-01322 Wessel, Richard L. 1979 Assessment of the Impact Upon Cultural Resources by Outside—within 1 (Northridge Archaeological the Proposed Zone Change 6406 for Tract Number mile Research Center) 35984, 102.4 Acres Centered at the Section Corner of Sections 19, 20, 29 and 30 Series USGS Topographic Map in Friendly Valley of Los Angeles LA-01775 Love, Bruce (Pyramid 1989 Cultural Resource Assessment for Three Postal Service Outside—within 1 Archaeology) Sites, Los Angeles County mile LA-01896 Van Voast, Judy 1989 Cultural Resource Survey Report on the Proposed Outside—within 1 (U.S. Forest Service) Bouquet Canyon Treatment Plant Site Santa Clarita, Los mile Angeles County, California
18 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
Relationship to Report No. Author (Affiliation) Year Study Title Project Area LA-02503 Romani, John F., Roberta 1992 Historic Property Survey Report & Archaeological Survey Outside—within 1 S. Greenwood, Portia Lee, Report & Historic Architectural Survey Report for the mile and Gwen Romani Route 126 Location Study (Easterly Extension) From I-5 (Greenwood and to SR-14, Santa Clarita Valley, Los Angeles County, Associates; Parsons, California 07-LA-126-5.8/12.7. Final Brinckerhofff, Quade and Douglas, Inc.) LA-02979 Whitley, David S. (W&S 1993 Phase I Archaeological Survey and Cultural Resources Outside—within 1 Consultants) Assessment for the Porta Bella Specific Plan Study Area, mile Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California LA-02996 Valentine-Maki, Mary (Fugro 1993 Cultural Resources Survey for the Proposed Santa Clara Outside—within 1 McClelland, Inc.) River Horse and Bike Trail Santa Clarita, Los Angeles mile County, California LA-03387 Whitley, David S., and 1994 Phase 1 Archaeological Survey and Cultural Resource Outside—within 1 Joseph M. Simon (W&S Assessment for the 750 Acre Soledad Canyon Study mile Consultants) Area, Los Angeles County, California LA-03690 Wlodarski, Robert J. 1997 Cultural Resources Evaluation City of Santa Clarita Outside—within 1 (Historical, Environmental, Circulation Element EIR mile Archaeological, Research, Team) LA-03840 Wlodarski, Robert J. 1996 A Phase I Archaeological Study: Santa Clarita Water Outside—within 1 (Historical, Environmental, Company Application 29898 for 13 Existing Well Site mile Archaeological, Research, Locations, Los Angeles County, Ca. Team) LA-03913 Unknown (W&S 1997 Phase I Archaeological Survey and Cultural Resources Outside—within 1 Consultants) Assessment of the Castaic Lake Water Agency Study mile Area, Los Angeles County, California LA-04104 Macko, Michael E. (Mako 1993 Cultural Resource Evaluation of the LADWP Power Plant Outside—within 1 Archaeological Consulting) 1—Olive Line 1 Transmission Line Maintenance Project mile Los Angeles County, California LA-04250 Wlodarski, Robert J. 1998 A Phase I Archaeological Study: City of Santa Clarita Outside—within 1 (Historical, Environmental, Golden Valley Road/ High School EIR, Los Angeles mile Archaeological, Research, County, California Team) LA-04506 Wlodarski, Robert J. 1999 A Phase I Archaeological Study: The Golden Valley Outside—within 1 (Historical, Environmental, Road-Soledad Canyon Road Interchange Project, Los mile Archaeological, Research, Angeles County, California Team) LA-06093 Duke, Curt (LSA 2002 Cultural Resource Assessment AT&T Wireless Services Outside—within 1 Associates, Inc.) Facility No. D339b Los Angeles County, California mile LA-06917 Bricker, Lauren W., and 1998 Historic Property Clearance Report for the Magic Outside—within 1 Janet L. Tearnen Mountain Parkway Via Princessa Improvement Project in mile (Chambers Group, Inc.) the City of Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California LA-07486 McKenna, Jeanette A. 2005 A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Outside—within 1 Soledad Circle Estates Project Area (Tract Map 62343), mile Located in the Santa Clarita Area of Los Angeles County, California LA-07502 Shattuck, Paul, and Caprice 2004 Cultural Resource Assessment Cingular Wireless Facility Outside—within 1 D. Harper (LSA Associates, No. VY 432-01 Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, mile Inc.) California LA-08794 Bonner, Wayne H. (Michael 2006 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Outside—within 1 Brandman Associates) Results for Global Signal, LLC Candidate 3019354, mile Terminus of Keaton Avenue, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California LA-09038 Wlodarski, Robert J. 2006 A Phase I Archaeological Study for the Proposed Sports Outside—within 1 (Historical, Environmental, Complex Expansion Project a 38-Acre Site Located in mile Archaeological, Team) the City of Santa Clarita, County of Los Angeles, California
19 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
Relationship to Report No. Author (Affiliation) Year Study Title Project Area LA-09851 Parr, Robert E. (Cal 2008 Cultural Resource Assessment for the Replacement of Outside—within 1 Heritage) Deteriorated Power Pole #1443493E on the Southern mile California Edison Company Saugus-North Oaks- Tengen 66kV Circuit Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California LA-10204 McKenna, Jeanette A. 2004 A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Park Outside—within 1 Vista Project Area in the Santa Clarita Area of Los mile Angeles County, CA LA-10328 Schmidt, James (Compass 2009 Archaeological Letter Report: WO 6059-4800; 9-4860: Outside—within 1 Rose Archaeological, Inc.) TD 370156, Crabtree, Nero, and Moccasin 16 kV mile Distribution Circuits Deteriorated Pole Replacement Project MMS #871, Santa Clarita Area, Los Angeles County, California LA-10484 Schmidt, James (Compass 2010 WO 4605-2357: Saugus-Tengen-North Oaks 66 kV Outside—within 1 Rose Archaeological, Inc.) Deteriorated Pole Replacement Project, Los Angeles mile County. LA-10503 McKenna, Jeanette A. 2005 A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Outside—within 1 Keystone Project Area in the Santa Clarita Area of Los mile Angeles County, California LA-10558 Maki, Mary (Conejo 2005 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Approximately 1.4 Outside—within 1 Archaeological Consultants) Linear Miles for the Santa Clarita River trail project, mile Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California LA-10560 Hunt, Kevin, and Richard D. 2005 Final Confidential: Cultural Resources Study for the Outside—within 1 Schultz (SWCA Upper Santa Clara River Watershed Arundo and mile Environmental Consultants) Tamarisk Removal Program Long-Term Implementation Plan, Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment, Los Angeles County, California LA-10642 Tang, Bai "Tom" (CRM 2010 Preliminary Historical/Archaeological Resources Study, Outside—within 1 Tech) Antelope Valley line Positive Train Control (PTC) Project mile Southern California Regional Rail Authority, Lancaster to Glendale, Los Angeles County, California LA-11301 Maki, Mary (Conejo 2010 Phase I Archaeological Survey of Approximately 16 Outside—within 1 Archaeological Consultants) Acres for the Lake Castaic Water Agency's Phase 2A mile Recycled Water Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California LA-11302 Gibson, Joe (Impact 2010 Cultural Memorandum Report for the Recycled Water Outside—within 1 Sciences, Inc.) Program, Phase IIA Project in the City of Santa Clarita mile LA-11303 Gibson, Joe (Impact 2010 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration/Environmental Outside—within 1 Sciences, Inc.) Assessment Recycled Water Program, Phase 2A mile LA-11761 Loftus, Shannon (ACE 2012 Historic Architectural Resource-Inventory and Outside—within 1 Environmental) Assessment AT&T Site LAD339, Soledad/Oak 20789 mile Soledad Street Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, CA LA-12861 Gusick, Amy, Margaret 2015 Cultural Resources Technical Report: Metrolink FY2013- Outside—within 1 Diss, and Marjorie Nowick 14 Rehabilitation Project CONTRACT NO. E737C-08 mile (HDR, Inc.) CTO NO. 062 LA-13110 Anonymous (W&S 2010 Class III Inventory Phase I Archaeological Survey of the Outside—within 1 Consultants) Via Princessa Road Extension, City of Santa Clarita, Los mile Angeles County, California.
20 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
Previously Recorded Cultural Resources
The CHRIS records search identified seven previously recorded cultural resources within a 1.6-km (1- mile) radius of the project area (Table 3); none of the resources are located directly within the project area. Of the seven identified in the vicinity, four are historic-period built-environment resources, two are historic-period archaeological sites, and one is an isolated prehistoric artifact. The prehistoric artifact—a chert flake (P-19-100133)—was recorded on the north side of Soledad Canyon, northwest of the project area.
Table 3. Previously Recorded Resources within 1 Mile of the Project Area
Relationship Primary Trinomial Time Resource Recorded By (Affiliation) Year to Project Number Number Period Description Area P-19- CA-LAN- Historic Los Angeles A. Cole, D. McDowell, and D. 1992; 1992; Outside—within 002105 002105H Aqueduct Shelton (Science Applications 2007; 2011; 1 mile International Corp.); J. Costello, J. 2017 Marvin, and J. Tordoff (Foothill Resources); A. Moreno, K. Tsunoda (Jones and Stokes); Katherine Anderson (ESA); N. Lawson, M. Kaye (CH2M Hill); Alec Stevenson (AECOM) P-19- CA-LAN- Historic Olive-Power Plant Cole, McDowell, Shelton (SAIC); 1992; 1993; Outside—within 002132 002132H 1 – Transmission M. Macko (Macko Archaeological 2004; 2007; 1 mile Line Consulting); D.S. Whitley (W&S 2010 Consultants); Koji Tsunoda (Jones and Stokes); J.M. Simon (W&S Consultants) P-19- CA-LAN- Historic Southern Pacific- Jeanette A. McKenna 2005 Outside—within 003582 003582H Santa Fee 1 mile Railroad P-19- CA-LAN- Historic Domestic and Teresa Terry (Statistical Research, 2014 Outside—within 004452 004452H industrial property, Inc.) 1 mile with associated refuse scatter P-19- CA-LAN- Historic Multiple-episode Teresa Terry (Statistical Research, 2014 Outside—within 004453 004453H historic refuse Inc.) 1 mile dump P-19- -- Prehistoric Chert flake D.S. Whitley (W&S Consultants) 1994 Outside—within 100133 1 mile
P-19- -- Historic LA Aqueduct K.A. Crawford (Crawford Historic 2005; 2011 Outside—within 190022 Transmission Line Services); Shannon L. Loftus (ACE 1 mile Tower AT&T Site Environmental) LAD339
Sacred Lands File Search and Native American Consultation The NAHC transmitted the results of its SLF search in a letter dated December 15, 2020 (Appendix A). The letter indicated that the SLF search was negative. The NAHC noted that negative results may not indicate the absence of Native American cultural resources in the area and provided a contact list of 16 Native American tribal organizations that may have knowledge of cultural resources in or near the study area.
All outreach to Native American parties and follow-up consultation are being conducted by the City, pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1, as amended by the provisions of Assembly Bill 52. Accordingly, the
21 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
outreach and consultation are being conducted to assess the potential for tribal cultural resources, which may include but are not limited to those that are archaeological in nature, that is, a tribal cultural resource that may also be an archaeological resource. The City has sent notification letters to California Native American tribes that have previously requested to be included in all notifications sent, pursuant to PRC Section 21080.3.1. To date, the City has sent its initial notification letters and has received one reply from the Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians (FTBMI), The FTBMI requested further consultation on the project, which is in progress. The City is awaiting responses from other tribal parties. Therefore, this analysis and impact assessment for archaeological resources does not consider any information submitted during the tribal consultation process.
Archaeological Survey No archaeological resources were identified during the survey. SWCA’s archaeological survey covered 20.38 acres, which comprises the 10.28-acre project area (Lots 1 and 3) and the remainder of the project parcels (Lots 2 and 4), which together measure 10.1 acres (Figure 6). Ground visibility within Lots 1 through 3 varied between 51 and 100 percent; the extant development in Lot 2 prevented surface inspection, and grasses and low-lying shrubs obscured some surface visibility within the project area (Figure 7). The project area is primarily open space with no aspect; surface sediments were observed as a light brown coarse silty sand alluvium. The southern portion of Lot 1 begins to rise in elevation with moderate to steep slopes (5–15 degrees) that run from the top of ridges with aspects to the west, north, and east. Lot 4 is situated within these ridges, and ground visibility was 0 to 25 percent due to dense vegetation (Figure 8). Portions of Lot 4 (primarily in the western area behind the Home Depot) were unable to be surveyed safely due to excessive slopes (see Figure 6); therefore, reconnaissance survey techniques were employed in those areas where it was deemed unsafe to undertake an intensive pedestrian survey. The total reconnaissance survey area measured approximately 1.30 acres. The reconnaissance survey was conducted in the northwestern portion of Lot 4 and in a small portion of the project area toward the south end. A total of 9.39 acres of the project area was included in the pedestrian survey; the remaining 0.89 acres of the project area was inspected through reconnaissance level survey.
22 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
Figure 6. Archaeological resources survey results map.
23 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
Figure 7. Overview of the project area (Lots 1 and 3) and Lot 2 (commercial property and parking lot), facing northwest.
Figure 8. Overview of Lot 4 and reconnaissance survey areas within steep terrain, facing north.
24 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS SWCA conducted a CHRIS records search and pedestrian survey, and no archaeological resources were identified in the project area. The NAHC conducted a search of its SLF and returned negative results. Supplementary archival research indicates that the project area was subject to plow agriculture during the early to mid-twentieth century, which would have disturbed, displaced, or otherwise destroyed any archaeological components that once existed on the surface. The lack of historic-period archaeological resources identified during the pedestrian survey suggests that as-yet unidentified resources from this time period are unlikely to be buried and preserved within the project area. A review of ethnographic literature confirmed that the project area is within the ancestral territory of the Tataviam and that significant villages once existed in the region. Natural resources that were important to Native Americans, particularly the Santa Clara River, are within reasonable proximity to the project area. However, no evidence was identified to suggest that within the project area there is an increased likelihood of buried archaeological resources associated with Native Americans. Therefore, SWCA considers the likelihood of buried archaeological resources within the project area to be low.
The project requires excavation and removal of the underlying alluvial sediments to depths ranging between 0.3 and 5 m (1 and 5 feet) below the current grade. While the likelihood of buried archaeological resources within the project area is considered low, if present, such resources have the potential to be significant under CEQA. The proposed project would adhere to applicable regulatory compliance measures intended to reduce and avoid creating significant impacts to archaeological resources in the event of a discovery during grading, excavation, or other ground-disturbing activities. If such resources are exposed during ground disturbance, work in the immediate vicinity of the find must stop until a qualified archaeologist can evaluate the significance of the find. Ground-disturbing activities may continue in other areas. If the discovery proves significant under CEQA (Section 15064.5f; PRC 21082), additional work such as testing or data recovery may be warranted. Should any prehistoric or historical Native American artifacts be encountered, additional consultation with NAHC-listed tribal groups should be conducted immediately.
The discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbances; Section 7050.5 of the State of California Health and Safety Code states that no further disturbance shall occur until the Los Angeles County coroner has determined the origin and requisite disposition of the remains pursuant to PRC 5097.98. The Los Angeles County coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the human remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner will notify the NAHC, who will determine and notify an MLD. The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.
Based on these considerations, SWCA finds that the project would result in less-than-significant impacts to archaeological resources.
25 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
REFERENCES CITED Barth, A. 1990 Mid-Crustal Emplacement of Mesozoic plutons, San Gabriel Mountains, California, and Implications for the Geologic History of the San Gabriel terrane. In The Nature and Origin of Cordilleran Magmatism, edited by J.L. Anderson, pp. 33–46. Geological Society of America Memoir 174. Geological Society of America, Boulder, Colorado. Beck, Warren A., and Ynez D. Haase 1974 Historical Atlas of California. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma. Bowman, J.N. 1949 The First Authentic Placer Mine in California. Historical Society of Southern California 31(3):225–230. Bright, William 1975 The Alliklik Mystery. Journal of California Anthropology 2(2):228–230. Byrd, Brian F., and L. Mark Raab 2007 Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium. In California Prehistory, edited by T.L. Jones and K.A. Klar, pp. 215–228. Alta Mira Press, Lanham, Maryland. d'Azevedo, Warren (editor) 1986 Great Basin. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 11, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Dixon, J. L., A. Hartshorn, A. Heimsath, R. DiBiase, and K. Whipple. 2012 Chemical Weathering Response to Tectonic Forcing: A Soils Perspective from the San Gabriel Mountains, California. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 323:40–49. Engelhardt, Zephyrin, O.F.M. 1927a San Gabriel Mission and the Beginning of Los Angeles. Mission San Gabriel, San Gabriel, California. 1927b San Fernando Rey, the Mission of the Valley. Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago, Illinois. Franks, Kenny A., and Paul F. Lambert 1985 Early California Oil: A Photographic History, 1965-1940. Texas A&M University Press, College Station. Grant, Campbell 1978 Eastern Coastal Chumash. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 509–519. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Gumprecht, Blake 2001 The Los Angeles River: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth. Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
26 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
Hackel, Stephen, Jeanette Zerneke, and Nat Zappia 2015 Early California Cultural Atlas. Geospatial data. Available at: http://ecai.org/. Accessed December 18, 2020. Harlow, Neal 1992 California Conquered: The Annexation of a Mexican Province 1846-1850. University of California Press, Berkeley. Heizer, Robert F. 1978 Introduction. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 1–5. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Johnson, John R., and David D. Earle 1990 Tatavium Geography and Ethnohistory. Journal of California and Great Basin Anthropology 12(1990):191–214. Kellogg, James M., and Jorge A. Pelayo 2020 Geotechnical Engineering Investigation: Proposed Golden Triangle Apartments SWC Golden Triangle Road & Isabella Parkway Santa Clarita, California. Krazan & Associates, Inc., Corona, California. King, Chester 2004 Ethnographic Overview of the Angeles National Forest: Tataviam and San Gabriel Mountain Serrano Ethnohistory. Prepared for U.S. Department of Agriculture. Unpublished confidential literature on file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. King, Chester, and Thomas C. Blackburn 1978 Tataviam. In California, edited by R. F. Heizer, pp. 535–537. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Koerper, Henry C., and Christopher E. Drover 1983 Chronology Building for Coastal Orange County: The Case from CA-ORA-119-A. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 19(2):1–34. Koerper, Henry C., Roger D. Mason, and Mark L. Peterson 2002 Complexity, Demography, and Change in Late Holocene Orange County. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California Coast, edited by J.M. Erlandson and T.L. Jones, pp. 63–81. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6. Costen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Kroeber, Alfred J. 1925 Handbook of the Indians of California. Bulletin 78. Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. Reprinted 1976 by Dover Publications, Inc., New York.
27 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
Mason, Roger D., and Mark L. Peterson 1994 Newport Coast Archaeological project: Newport Coast Settlement Systems–Analysis and Discussion, Volume 1, Part 1 of 2. Prepared by The Keith Companies. On file at the South Central Coastal Information Center, California State University, Fullerton. Mithun, Marianne 2001 The Languages of Native North America. Reprinted. Cambridge University Press, Massachusetts. Originally published 1999, Cambridge University Press, Massachusetts. Moratto, Michael J. 1984 California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) 1999 Hanford Series. U.S. Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey. Available at: https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu. Accessed January 2021. Newhall, Ruth W. 1997 Why Santa Clarita? Old Town Newhall Gazette. February–March 1997. Available at: https://scvhistory.com/scvhistory/scv-name.htm. Accessed December 23, 2020. Newhall Signal and Saugus Enterprise 1938 Honby. 10 March 1938. Newhall Signal and Saugus Enterprise 20(10). Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 2020 California Historical Landmarks. California Office of Historic Preservation. Accessed December 15, 2020 Portolá, Gaspar De 1909 Diary of Gaspar de Portolá During the California Expedition of 1769-1880. D.E. Smith and F.J. Teggart (editors). Publications of the Academy of Pacific Coast History Vol. 1, No. 3. University of California, Berkeley. Starr, Kevin 2007 California: A History. Modern Library, New York. Van Horn, David M. 1981 Archaeological Survey Report: a 285+ Acre Parcel Located Near Saugus and Newhall in an Unincorporated Portion of Los Angeles County, California. Archaeological Associates, Costa Mesa California. On-file South Central Coastal Information Center, Report No. LA- 1032. Wallace, William 1955 Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214–230. 1978 Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 25–36. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C.
28 Archaeological Resources Assessment for the Golden Triangle Project, Santa Clarita, Los Angeles County, California
Wilkman, Jon, and Nancy Wilkman 2006 Picturing Los Angeles. Gibbs Smith, Salt Lake City, Utah. Worden, Leon 1996 Latins Invade, Conquer Western SCV. The Signal. August 28. Yerkes, R. F. 1996 Preliminary Geologic Map of the Mint Canyon 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, Southern California. Open File Report 96-89. Scale 1:24,000. U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
29
APPENDIX A Sacred Lands File Search Results
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor
NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
December 15, 2020
Chris Millington SWCA Environmental Consultants
CHAIRPERSON Laura Miranda Via Email to: [email protected] Luiseño
VICE CHAIRPERSON Re: 20600 Golden Triangle IS/MND Project, Los Angeles County Reginald Pagaling Chumash Dear Mr. Millington: SECRETARY Merri Lopez-Keifer A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) Luiseño was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not PARLIAMENTARIAN indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural Russell Attebery resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites. Karuk Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources COMMISSIONER in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential Marshall McKay adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; Wintun if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By
contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to COMMISSIONER consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of William Mungary notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to Paiute/White Mountain Apache ensure that the project information has been received.
If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify COMMISSIONER me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information. Julie Tumamait- Stenslie Chumash If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].
COMMISSIONER [Vacant] Sincerely,
COMMISSIONER [Vacant]
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Christina Snider Andrew Green Pomo Cultural Resources Analyst
Attachment NAHC HEADQUARTERS 1550 Harbor Boulevard Suite 100 West Sacramento, California 95691 (916) 373-3710 [email protected] NAHC.ca.gov
Page 1 of 1